To Engineer or not to Engineer
What does the future hold for society? With technology advancing as rapidly and in so much variety as it is at the present, there are infinite possibilities. One possible futuristic society, however, is depicted in the science fiction movie Blade Runner. The film raises several sociological and scientific issues that are pertinent and important questions that need to be tackled by the present society. Many of these questions center around the issue of genetic engineering. Ultimately, we are dealing with a thin red line separating beneficial from detrimental in terms of genetic engineering. How are we to determine if it is right to alter the genetic makeup of a being? How far is too far? I feel that if we need to ask ourselves these questions now, “too far” is upon us.
Sentience, Slavery, and Society
The first thing that demands discussion, is the idea of a sentient being. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines sentient as “capable of feeling or perception.” With this in mind, it can be assumed that humans are sentient beings, as well as dogs, cats, giraffes, or aardvarks. All of these beings mentioned show feelings of pain, pleasure, happiness, and other emotions. Animals can display these feelings just like humans can, only through a different means such as wagging a tail or purring. For this paper, let’s focus on humans. In the movie Blade Runner, there were two major groups of beings that were the focus of the film: humans, who were born naturally, and replicants, who were genetically engineered to be similar to humans. It turns out that the replicants are almost exactly like the humans. With the exception of a special test for involuntary eye movements when certain emotions are provoked, there is no real way to distinguish a replicant from the person who lives down the street. I suppose this could be considered a great success in genetic engineering, in that something so close to a real human was created (in the movie).
On the flip side, however, Blade Runner provides an excellent example of one of the risks brought about by genetic engineering. Roy Baty, the leader of the replicants, rises to become more powerful than his creator. In a rage, Baty proceeds to kill Tyrell, his creator, when it is understood that Tyrell can not lengthen Baty’s life. If technology should ever advance to the point where humans can be replicated, I think that this issue of gaining power is one that needs to be confronted. It would essentially be a situation where the genetic engineers could be creating “monsters.” Supporters of these engineers could then respond with the example from Blade Runner, where the replicants are limited to a 4-year lifetime. This gives the creators a feeling of control over the replicants, but appearance is not necessarily reality. Knowing that they were only created to live for a short time could infuriate a hostile replicant, such as it did to Baty, resulting in a high risk situation that could eventually lead to a homicidal disaster.
Let’s consider for a moment a positive aspect to genetic engineering. Should technology advance to the point where humans could be created, it might be possible to form a person simply with the mindset to work. Let me explain. By altering several genes, it may be possible to create a person who would want to do all the jobs that naturally born people seem to not want to do. I’m talking about the dirty and the difficult jobs. On the outside, it seems like a good idea. It would be utopian just to concern ourselves with the things we like to do, or the easy, or clean work. But, when people read deeper into this idea, they are hit with a stunning reality. This reality would be that society has reverted back to the ways of its past, bringing slavery back into practice. It is the same principle that was used in the nineteenth century, in that people could hire an engineered “slave” to work for them.
I feel that this would be a complete detriment to society. The United States was socially torn apart and nearly physically torn apart, due in part to the practice of slavery. By genetically engineering beings for the sole purpose of servitude, we as a society are saying that we do not respect what those people died for in the Civil War, and we do not respect those people who fought for civil rights during the twentieth century. By condoning the practice of genetic engineering for the purposes mentioned above, we make a mockery of what this country stands for.
Earlier, I mentioned that humans were sentient beings, and that replicants (those brought about through genetic engineering) were extremely similar to humans. I’d like to expand on this for a moment. People brought about through genetic engineering require some basic starting point. Just like a house requires a foundation, these replicants require a chromosome or gene pool to develop from. The source of this gene pool would be the genetic makeup of a naturally born human being. Thus, the replicants are developing like a normal human would, by taking the genes from existing humans (parents) and combining them to form the genes of the new human. So, in its most basic form, genetically engineering people to work in servitude is the same as having naturally born babies in order to work in servitude. The only difference would be that these servants would never be infants, they would be created as adults. However, in principle, there is no difference between bearing a child for servitude and creating an adult for servitude.
Proponents of genetic engineering could cite the example from Blade Runner, which shows laboratory workers actually manufacturing the eyes of the replicants. They could say that the genetically engineered replicants are formed from simple materials, making the comparison to the creation of robots (cyborgs). I would propose that this is an invalid argument. In the past six months, my grandfather has had his leg amputated, and my uncle has had his foot amputated. They have each been given a prosthesis to replace the amputated section. Parts of their bodies have been manufactured, yet I do not consider them robots at all. They are still the same relatives that I’ve always known them to be. The same can be said for those people who have had one of their eyes replaced by a glass eye. It retains the normal appearance of a natural eye, but it is manufactured. We do not consider these individuals any less of a person because of this.
The Unforeseen Consequences
I’d now like to echo some comments that were made in the essay “The Dark Side of the Genome” by Robert A. Weinberg. Weinberg suggests that genetic engineering could bring about unforeseen problems in the aspects of child birth. Advancing technology might someday allow the parents of an unborn child determine its sex, eye color, hair color, and many other small details of our lives. Weinberg proposes that this would increase the number of abortions performed due to the fact that parents would have the ability to make a decision as to whether or not this child was exactly what they wanted. Granted, genetic engineering could open new doorways, particularly in the medical fields, where genetic disease and disorder could be neutralized. There may be some issues that need to be considered that accompany this idea of using engineering to eliminate disease and disorder. Society could encounter the situation where only the elite and wealthy would be able to utilize this service. This situation could lead to an uprising in society, perhaps protests similar to those against abortions that we see today. The engineering may not stop at eliminating disease and disorder. Perhaps genetic engineering could even lead to a society of people where everyone is the same, in appearance and action, a very bland society, susceptible to collapse upon itself.
We, as a society, must recognize that although genetic engineering
may be very appealing on the outside, there will be consequences both foreseen
and unforeseen that accompany this technology. I don’t believe that
humans should have the power to replicate, engineer, or alter the genetic
makeup of another person in order to fit a certain appearance, lifestyle,
or desired service. I’m not certain that there’s
anyone on Earth who is smart enough, experienced enough, or responsible
enough to take on this task of playing God
through genetic alterations. These alterations would be in opposition to
the principles of equal rights that are the cornerstone of the country
in which we live. If society feels that it is necessary to genetically
engineer in order to progress into the future, I think we need to re-evaluate
what progress is exactly. I interpret progress as positively building
upon the past, not tearing it down by going against key principles of our
free society such as domestic peace, equality, and civil safety.
Not only do I believe that humans do not have the right to genetically
engineer, I feel that humans should not put their own society at such grave
risk. We are all dealt a certain hand with which to play the game
of life. If we alter that hand with cards like genetic engineering
up our sleeves, we cheat the game. We cheat life, and cheating has
its consequences.
Works Cited
Blade Runner. Director Ridley Scott, 1982.
Mish, Frederick C., ed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994. Pg. 665.
Weinberg, Robert A. “The Dark Side of the Genome”
Technology and the Future. Ed. Albert H. Teich. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Pg. 303-313.